• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
geggy said:
I think the real mystery of the attack on pentagon you all should talk about instead is the failure in communication between the faa and norad. It's odd that the pentagon was struck by AA77 45 minutes after the second wtc strike in nyc, 75 minutes after faa was notified that AA77 had been hijacked and no fighter jets were visible in the skies of DC to defend the hijacked plane.
Click to expand...

You're not going to answer ANY more questions, will you ?

Was it an incompetent failure or was the system designed to fail on that day?
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. It could very well be that they simply couldn't intervene in time.
 
Gravy said:
As I said, one thing at a time, tiger. Slow and easy. We provide backup for our claims. Please provide backup for the 10 claims you made in this paragraph.
Click to expand...

It was pretty clear that we all saw the plane crashed into the corner side of the south tower (2nd impact). I don't know wehether if the wings of the plane were ripped apart as it crashed into the tower before reaching to the column cores. EVen if the wings didnt rip apart, it would have only cut through a maxiumum of 3 core columns, leaving other numbers of column cores intacted. There were no signs of any unbuckling of the trusses and the frames, otherwise the cracks in the concrete would be clearly visible outside the building. During the impact, most of the fuel bursted into flames outward of the building, whatever left of it most likely would have dripped out of the impact holes, never mind dripping into the elevator shaft or the tubes of the core columns. So what exactly caused the column cores to fail? Was it deliberately failed by the explosive devices that may have been preplanted before the attacks?

Bobkark, I was only demostrating that its possible to create a nuclear bomb as small as it would fit in a briefcase so it doesnt sound so farfetched if some kind of a nuclear bomb could have been planted in the basement to blast the lower column core of the towers.
 
geggy said:
List of sept 11 activists debunking the no plane theory at pentagon...
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html

I think the real mystery of the attack on pentagon you all should talk about instead is the failure in communication between the faa and norad. It's odd that the pentagon was struck by AA77 45 minutes after the second wtc strike in nyc, 75 minutes after faa was notified that AA77 had been hijacked and no fighter jets were visible in the skies of DC to defend the hijacked plane.

Was it an incompetent failure or was the system designed to fail on that day?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0819/p12s05-altv.html
Click to expand...

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
 
geggy said:
Bobkark, I was only demostrating that its possible to create a nuclear bomb as small as it would fit in a briefcase so it doesnt sound so farfetched if some kind of a nuclear bomb could have been planted in the basement to blast the lower column core of the towers.
Click to expand...
Apart from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that nuclear weapons where used against the WTC, Don’t you think that there would be reports of the effects of radiation on the survivors, and the thousands of workers who came into contact with the site?
 
geggy said:
Bobkark, I was only demostrating that its possible to create a nuclear bomb as small as it would fit in a briefcase so it doesnt sound so farfetched if some kind of a nuclear bomb could have been planted in the basement to blast the lower column core of the towers.
Click to expand...

Except for the complete lack of any residual radiation, radioactive material, or EMP pulse that would be associated with a nuclear blast.

ETA: Dammit, brodski, stop reading my mind! You haven't properly filled out forms 185-B-revC, pages 1 through 243, Request for Inspection of Mental States and Thoughts of Globalist Operative, Secretive/Immediate.
 
Gravy said:
As I said, one thing at a time, tiger. Slow and easy. We provide backup for our claims. Please provide backup for the 10 claims you made in this paragraph.
Click to expand...
I think geggy misunderstood your request for backup. While I believe you meant something like supporting evidence, he thought you meant simply restate it using some different words :D
 
geggy said:
. EVen if the wings didnt rip apart, it would have only cut through a maxiumum of 3 core columns, leaving other numbers of column cores intacted.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember an earlier post where someone overlaid a silhouette of an airliner over the imprint of the WTC. It seemed to fill much of the interior...probabbly more than 3 columns worth.

There were no signs of any unbuckling of the trusses and the frames, otherwise the cracks in the concrete would be clearly visible outside the building.
Click to expand...

How do you know cracks would have been visible? Are you a structural engineer? Plus, wouldn't these cracks have been 70-some stories up? What are the chances of seeing them from ground level?

During the impact, most of the fuel bursted into flames outward of the building, whatever left of it most likely would have dripped out of the impact holes, never mind dripping into the elevator shaft or the tubes of the core columns.
Click to expand...

How do you know this? Did anyone measure how much fuel exploded outside the building? Simply eyeballing it won't do, especially if you are not an expert on such things.

So what exactly caused the column cores to fail? Was it deliberately failed by the explosive devices that may have been preplanted before the attacks?
Click to expand...

I don't know the name of the actual logical fallacy you have here, but you are making a presupposition that explosives actually existed.

Bobkark, I was only demostrating that its possible to create a nuclear bomb as small as it would fit in a briefcase so it doesnt sound so farfetched if some kind of a nuclear bomb could have been planted in the basement to blast the lower column core of the towers.
Click to expand...

True, I think, that a nuclear bomb could fit in a briefcase. False, that a nuclear blast was used in the WTC. If so, there would still be residual radiation to this day. Any high school student with a Geiger counter could debunk this one.

(How am I doing, guys?)
 
NobbyNobbs said:
True, I think, that a nuclear bomb could fit in a briefcase. False, that a nuclear blast was used in the WTC. If so, there would still be residual radiation to this day. Any high school student with a Geiger counter could debunk this one.

(How am I doing, guys?)
Click to expand...

To be fair, tactical nukes (the small ones such as could be used in artillery shells, small bombs, and briefcase nukes) do leave residual radiation, but not at high levels or for long periods. I can't give actual numbers on this...I would suspect some residual radiation but I don't think it would be distinguishable from background at this point. There should have been evidence of some of the decay products in the rubble, though, and radiation immediately after the event (a few weeks to a few months) would have been measurable (although damaging dosages probably would have been limited to the immediate blast and shortly thereafter.

All of this is from memory, though. I'll see if I can verify my "educated wild-a$$ guesses" and post some links :)
 
geggy said:
List of sept 11 activists debunking the no plane theory at pentagon...
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html
Click to expand...

Don't you think, genius, that if you agree that these people were fooled in believing there was no plane hitting the pentagon, then if you apply the same logic, maybe you were ALL fooled in beliving in ALL of your other theories????

geggy said:
I think the real mystery of the attack on pentagon you all should talk about instead is the failure in communication between the faa and norad.
Click to expand...


THAT IS THE OFFICIAL STORY!
 
Bobkark, I was only demostrating that its possible to create a nuclear bomb as small as it would fit in a briefcase so it doesnt sound so farfetched if some kind of a nuclear bomb could have been planted in the basement to blast the lower column core of the towers.
Click to expand...

Why can you not get this?? If the 'lower column core' of the towers was weakend by explosives, thermite or an imaginary briefcase-sized nuclear bomb why in hell didn't the entire building start to collapse when tens of thousands of tons of upper floors began crashing down on the floors below them? This is just STUPID. The bottom floor didn't collapse until the entire rest of the building happened to land on it.

And if "tons of thermite" had been planted on floor 81, who planted it without any one of the tens of thousands of workers who worked in EACH building day and night not becoming suspicious?

"Never mind that cord that looks like something used to detonate tons of thermite mam, that's just the new CAT-7 cables for your new extra-high-speed internet connection. You people are lucky in this building, mam! It hasn't even been 3 weeks ago that Al Gore invented this CAT-7 cable, and you're the first to get it!"

All we need is a younger Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, and a subplot love story with the lovely Scarlett Johansson and we have the makings of Die Hard IV. I'd pay to see it!
 
I'm sorry but I really don't see why there is a debate over some building fire 30 years ago. This building, or whatever other building fire you have linked to, DIDN'T HAVE TWO 100 STORIES TOWERS CRUMBLE RIGHT NEXT TO THEM. YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN'T COMPARE!!!

Can't you see how crazy you are getting??? Now you're talking about nuclear bombs in the WTC, you're accusing Bush of nazism, you deny having been wrong in your own field of expertise (or admit that shrinker's hypothesis is very, very interesting).

Calisse, geggy get a life!
 
Last edited:
10 points to the first person who can find an example of a CTer claiming that people in New York who have developed mesothelioma as a result of breathing in pulverised asbestos on 9/11, actually have cancers related to radiation from a nano-nuke. Its only a matter of time…
 
Pardalis said:
Of course now geggy is going to explain to you that NUCLEAR explosions weakened the steel columns therefore the towers could collapse.

How am I doing geggy, am I a good conspiracist?
Click to expand...

BTW geggy, I posted this back in post #2258. You are soooo predictable!!!
 
geggy said:
Bobkark, I was only demostrating that its possible to create a nuclear bomb as small as it would fit in a briefcase so it doesnt sound so farfetched if some kind of a nuclear bomb could have been planted in the basement to blast the lower column core of the towers.
Click to expand...

Had a nuclear device been used, we would be able to detect radiation from the fallout. No radiation consistent with the detonation of a nuclear device has been found on the site, therefore, it is a farfetched claim. In addition, it still does not explain why there would be pools of molten steel found days after the collapse of the towers. So, I have to ask you again, what explosives could cause this to occur?
 
geggy said:
So what exactly caused the column cores to fail? Was it deliberately failed by the explosive devices that may have been preplanted before the attacks?
Click to expand...

Again, genius, as Regnad Kcin repeatedly told you: QUESTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE!

geggy said:
Bobkark, I was only demostrating that its possible to create a nuclear bomb as small as it would fit in a briefcase so it doesnt sound so farfetched if some kind of a nuclear bomb could have been planted in the basement to blast the lower column core of the towers.
Click to expand...

What is far fetched is the WHOLE IDEA of the preplanted explosives.
 
http://www.montalk.net/pentagon.html

I still can't believe that site. This is supreme idiocy. They debunked one of their own theory, only to replace it with a far more impossible theory. They are so obsessed with their paranoid view of the world that when they actually do a have a moment of lucidity, the paranoia kicks in imediately with even more power. Wow. This is beyond stupid.
 
geggy said:
EVen if the wings didnt rip apart, it would have only cut through a maxiumum of 3 core columns, leaving other numbers of column cores intacted.
Click to expand...
This would be true if it weren't completely wrong:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Start on page 16.

geggy said:
There were no signs of any unbuckling of the trusses and the frames, otherwise the cracks in the concrete would be clearly visible outside the building.
Click to expand...
For once you're right...sort of.
There were no signs of unbuckling.
But there were clear signs of buckling:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Start on page 20.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom